Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

Reply to Statler Waldorf

If you look at my comments on one of Jasonís posts (see JasonLisle.com, his post entitled "Arbitrariness and Inconsistency, the opposite of rationality - Just search for my name) you will find that Iím very aware that Jason is simply defining a coordinate transformation (i.e. a convention) and in fact in an attempt to speed things along I help Jason by trying to correct some of the misconceptions of his correspondents. However, there remains a subtle gravitational issue (not to mention other issues) with Jasonís ASC model and I hope this will come clear when he eventually responds with his blog posts on the relation of the ASC model to gravity. So, with childish enthusiasm Iím very much looking forward to Jason coming out to play! Clearly Statler you are not aware of some of the complexities here.

However, I must be frank here and admit that I find fundamentalism in its many variations somewhat pathological. (As Iím sure you are aware)

Why? Do you also have a problem if someone believes men are generally physically faster and stronger than women are?

Like I said, no reasonable person would say that men and women are identical. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. But, I don't think either sex has a distinct advantage when it comes to being an authoritative figure. I think men have been in authoritative positions way more than women, but that has more to do with social norms, then it does ability. If you have any studies that suggest men perform better in an authoritative position than women I'd like to see it.

Of course it adds up, letís say I am on a trip with a friend, and he is the official map reader/navigator for the trip. However, he keeps having trouble reading the map, and getting us lost; because of this I think it makes good sense if I take the map from him and no longer let him be the map reader/navigator. Eve was spiritually deceived by Satan and therefore ďgot them lostĒ, so she lost the ability to be the navigator within the Church, it makes sense to me.

Your example is a pretty poor analogy. If Eve ate the apple and Adam did not, then your analogy would make sense. Then, I'd understand completely where you are coming from. But, let's not forget that Adam knew the rules too, and he disobeyed them just like Eve.

Your point is disobeying God because you were tricked by Satan makes you less likely to be a leader of man than disobeying God because you were peer pressured by man. In both situations they knowingly disobeyed Gods orders and sinned. Also, you never addressed my original point. If Adam could not even resist temptation from Eve, why would you think he would have resisted temptation from Satan?

My take on things:
-Males had power
-Males wanted to keep power
-Males wrote stories to justify why women shouldn't have power

Not youíre not, ASC is nothing more than a coordinate transformation which by definition cannot introduce any real forces, gravitational fields are real forces, so Reeves completely overshot his target, which is not surprising considering his credentials on the subject.

Originally Posted by Timothy V Reeve

This post is a reply to Statler Waldorf's post on 01-04-2013. See Old-Earth-vs-Young-Earth-a-debate-between-Christians/page2

If you look at my comments on one of Jasonís posts (see JasonLisle.com, his post entitled "Arbitrariness and Inconsistency, the opposite of rationality - Just search for my name) you will find that Iím very aware that Jason is simply defining a coordinate transformation (i.e. a convention) and in fact in an attempt to speed things along I help Jason by trying to correct some of the misconceptions of his correspondents. However, there remains a subtle gravitational issue (not to mention other issues) with Jasonís ASC model and I hope this will come clear when he eventually responds with his blog posts on the relation of the ASC model to gravity. So, with childish enthusiasm Iím very much looking forward to Jason coming out to play! Clearly Statler you are not aware of some of the complexities here.

However, I must be frank here and admit that I find fundamentalism in its many variations somewhat pathological. (As Iím sure you are aware)

I didnít link to your blog Mr. Reeves, Rob did. You took the time to register for this forum simply to respond to me and to fight Robís battles for him? I feel honored. I actually did read the comments section on Jasonís blog; that is why I am hardly impressed with the way you conduct yourself when dealing with fellow Christians. I am not an astrophysicist (nor do I play one on a blog), but I am well educated in operational sciences and I am fully aware that ASC is a convention, and that if scripture uses that convention when describing the events of creation week starlight could reach Earth on the fourth day of creation without any issues because it is using observed time rather than calculated time. I find it a bit odd you would waste your time arguing against a convention, especially considering that it was Einstein himself who pointed out that the one way speed of light being velocity dependent rather than position dependent is something that is stipulated by men and not a property of nature. However, I am willing to let Dr. Lisle address your objections in due time, even though giving your immature dealings with him you certainly do not deserve his attention, but isnít that what grace is all about?

Since you have expressed interest in posting on this board, Iíd like to ask you a rather simple question, why is it that you personally believe that the Earth is greater than 4 billion years old?

Originally Posted by JackFinfan

Like I said, no reasonable person would say that men and women are identical. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. But, I don't think either sex has a distinct advantage when it comes to being an authoritative figure. I think men have been in authoritative positions way more than women, but that has more to do with social norms, then it does ability. If you have any studies that suggest men perform better in an authoritative position than women I'd like to see it.

So you admit each gender as their own strengths and weaknesses? Well that is precisely the point; Paul doesnít forbid women from holding authority in the church because they are inferior at holding positions of authority, but rather because they are weaker when it comes to discerning spiritual truth which is something someone in an authoritative position in the church must do.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

So you admit each gender as their own strengths and weaknesses? Well that is precisely the point; Paul doesnít forbid women from holding authority in the church because they are inferior at holding positions of authority, but rather because they are weaker when it comes to discerning spiritual truth which is something someone in an authoritative position in the church must do.

Funny how you dodged the rest of my reply. Still waiting on you to answer my questions.

The Trap

Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf

However, I am willing to let Dr. Lisle address your objections in due time, even though giving your immature dealings with him you certainly do not deserve his attention, but isnít that what grace is all about?

From my study of fundamentalists, sects and cults I find Waldorfís proud, self-righteous, spiritually conceited and abusive tones all too familiar. I do not wish to continue talking with him.

Rest assured that any attempt by Lisle to deal with the relation of gravity and his coordinate convention will have nothing to do with grace; his hand has been forced by his standing amongst his followers and unexpected links to my blog beyond my control. This has resulted in what has ultimately proved to be unwelcome attention from hardened fundamentalist followers of Lisle. Such attention is no more desired by me than would be attention from the Westboro Baptists, Jehovahís Witnesses, William Tapley, the Witness Lee Brotherhood or any other sect/cult affiliates between here and Salt Lake City. I find the propensity of these religious cultures to encourage its affiliates to engage in character assassination repugnant and disturbing.

In the meantime Iíll wait for Lisle (if and when) to respond with the argument Iím expecting from him. The trap has been sprung.

Funny how you dodged the rest of my reply. Still waiting on you to answer my questions.

Oh come on Jack, you know I donít ignore posts, if anything I donít ignore the ones I should (:-P), I simply missed that post, Iíll respond below.

Originally Posted by JackFinfan

Your example is a pretty poor analogy. If Eve ate the apple and Adam did not, then your analogy would make sense. Then, I'd understand completely where you are coming from. But, let's not forget that Adam knew the rules too, and he disobeyed them just like Eve.

Sure he disobeyed them but not in the same manner as Eve. Eve was deceived by Satan, who questioned Godís word while Adam was really deceived he simply chose to disobey Godís word. I know itís a difficult passage, I have struggled with it before as well, but I have to stick with Godís revealed word on such matters since Heís the one who knows who is more easily deceived spiritually. Thereís a whole other aspect to this argument that is being overlooked, Paul also references the created ordinance to back up his position, women were created after men and apparently God did this for a specific purpose much like the 7 day creation week in order to establish our normal week. Additionally, women are not prohibited from holding positions in the church, or from even teaching other men (Acts 18), if this was merely a means of holding women down I think Paul would have prohibited women from holding authority over men or instructing men under any circumstance but he didnít.

Your point is disobeying God because you were tricked by Satan makes you less likely to be a leader of man than disobeying God because you were peer pressured by man. In both situations they knowingly disobeyed Gods orders and sinned. Also, you never addressed my original point. If Adam could not even resist temptation from Eve, why would you think he would have resisted temptation from Satan?

I am not saying men are never deceived spiritually, I am merely saying they are less likely to be.

My take on things:

-Males had power-Males wanted to keep power-Males wrote stories to justify why women shouldn't have power

Do you have anything to back that position up or are you just holding that as an opinion? I think most women have an easier time accepting the fact that they may have different spiritual gifts than men do than your assertion that they apparently are so gullible they let men dupe them into being submissive for the last few millennia.

Men and women are different; I see no issue with believing that, my wife is probably one of the nicest people on the planet and sharp as a whip to boot. However, I certainly know my scripture and theology far better than she does, weíre just different.

From my study of fundamentalists, sects and cults I find Waldorfís proud, self-righteous, spiritually conceited and abusive tones all too familiar. I do not wish to continue talking with him.

How disappointing! I was hoping weíd get to see Mr. Reeves defend his old earth position in its entirety for once. Only an old-earth creationist would enter a debate, take the side of the God-haters, call out a fellow-Christian for believing the ďfundamentalsĒ of the faith, insinuate all Christians who disagree with him on the age of the Earth are ďpathologicalĒ, and then run from the debate with his tail tucked between his legs because his feelings/ego were bruised. Unfortunately this sort of thing is far too typical with people who compromise on their faith in our day and age; they like to only pick the low hanging fruit and will run from anyone who may give them even the slightest hint of a challenge; that is obvious. This guy has ďintellectual hackĒ written all over him, I had his true colors pinned from the get-go. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along:-P